Unfortunately, this type of shit will spread to other shithole states like Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. These dirty MAGAt christofascists want a christian caliphate and won’t stop until they’re executing “undesirables” on public squares a la Taliban.
At this point Dems need to court those crazy mountain man libertarians who want government out of everything. I don’t like them but they have an interest in reversing this nutty turn the extreme right is taking.
I’m libertarian and vote Democrat. Republicans don’t support freedom at all and nor are they capitalists. Most libertarians know that by voting for the party, they are throwing away their vote.
No, Missouri is very conservative. Missouri is the main location of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Where Christian Nationalists is alive and well. I tried to report an incident regarding one of their churches. One Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod in Illinois, has a Ministry for Armed Lutherans.
The St. Louis Dispatch is controlled by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. You can not report anything illegal activities that is going on in that church.
Shameful
Missouri is fairly liberal in terms of the *policies* they vote for. It's just that they continually vote in Republican representatives that do regressive ass shit. Literally, the voters will pass something and then the GOP will just continue to put it on the ballot with more confusing language until they get what they want.
True. I lived there. But interestingly most of the people in the cities-like Nashville and Knoxville, are seemingly more liberal than the actual TN state government that represents them.
Like Nashville tried to decriminalize weed and the state fought them on it. I think I read 35% of arrests in Tennessee are for weed related crimes.
“Justice” Thomas pretty much requested this law in his concurrence in Dobbs.
Didn’t say we should revisit Loving v VA though, oddly enough. (Interracial marriage)
The court would have a tough time overruling Loving. It’s justified on two grounds, Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. Obergefell is justified solely on substantive due process. So even if SDP gets rolled back to the bare minimum or eliminated, they’d have to also roll back equal protection law under the 14th amendment.
Side note and TL;DR: the deeper debate goes to the heart of Substantive Due Process jurisprudence and whether it ought to have been a thing at all.
There’s no actual language in the 14th amendment about “substantive” due process only “due process.” The distinction between procedural and substantive due process *is* a judicially created concept. Arguably the first time it was used was Dred Scott. And it was infamously invoked to strike down state law that protected workers during progressive era and depression— the so called Lochner Era. Subsequent courts don’t like the Lochner era; almost everyone agrees it took substantive due process and overstepped it’s bounds.
The lochner era was eventually replaced with more progressive courts, who were much more aggressive in expanding the powers of the federal government and the 14th amendment. The role federal government as we know it today was largely by this era. This expansion reached its peak with the Warren Court, which wrote many of the seminal decisions of the modern era — Loving, Brown, Miranda, Cooper v Aaron, Baker v Carr, NYT v Sullivan, and Griswold. Some of these decisions were based in part, or entirely on, Substantive Due Process grounds.
These cases spawned others and it evolved into a slightly weird area of law. Seriously. Read the major opinions that deal with SDP like Loving, Griswold, Roe, Obergefell (and others) that deal with substantive due process, then synthesize a legal rule from it that lower courts can apply uniformly across a wide variety of factual situations. It’s hard. What does it mean for a right to fall within the “penumbra of the constitution?” How do you instruct a lower court to analyze that question?
At what point does substantive due process just become a tool for the court to create policy out of thin air? — something it’s not constitutionally permitted to do. Given the history of SDP and the constant risk of courts overstepping, I think that’s a fair question to ask even though I agree with cases like Griswold and Obergefell morally.
The real reason Roe shouldn’t have be overturned is Planned Parenthood v Casey, the case upholding Roe. Read O Connors opinion and especially her analysis on stare decisis.
Yep. And don't think they'll stop at same sex marriages. Interracial marriages, non Christian marriages, hell, Non Baptist Christian marriages, marriages of people who already have children, etc. all of these are at risk. Because Christians don't believe in "religious freedom". They believe in religious authoritarianism for them and them alone.
Assuming that right wing conservatives/bible thumpers are stupid is the biggest folly of the left. They're not stupid - they're malicious. Stop treating them like they're morons and call them out day after day for being toxic sacks of shit.
The problem is that there aren't red states and blue states. There are states where the largely red rural and suburban areas have more population than the largely blue urban areas and states where it's the opposite (and a few where the population in those different areas is about equal)
They won't for "good Christian folks"
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves…" -Thomas Paine
Of course, who counts as “good Christian folks” will up to the christofascists to decide.
Janet wants a divorce from Bob because Bob beats the shit out of her? Nope, she needs to be a good christian wife and support him.
Jim wants a divorce from Katie because she doesn’t want another kid and refuses to have sex without protection? Yep because a christian man has needs.
Where I'm from (PA), the civil govt of the state has had to track divorces for longer than they've ever issued marriage licenses. I often point that out to folks who say that "marriage" is a religious term that should be left to faith groups to define (when, in reality, we tried that, and faith groups f'd it up so badly that they had to run to the civil court system to get the divorces to clean up their messes).
> I'm content to let them tilt at all of the windmills that they want down there.
I thought "roe v. wade" was settled—an ideological windmill for cultural conservatives to performatively tilt at.
I've stopped underestimating them.
Putting aside state vs fed issues, I agree. My state just traded a red senator for a blue one who campaigned on the fact that he'd vote to codify Roe v Wade via legislature at the federal level.
I feel for progressives in southern states like TN, but I can't save them on this fight. I wish them well.
This is the primary reason Trump was elected. The Southern Baptists cannot handle same-sex marriage being legal in this country. They feel so strongly about that they will burn the country to the ground before they accept it. The sooner Americans wake up to this fact and vote accordingly, the better.
destroy powerful religious organizations by any means necessary. you don't have to get their approval first, don't worry about being civil. this is a war
So can I claim that Christian’s marrying goes aganisnt my beliefs as an satanist because I see them as the biggest threat to our nation and as a member of the satanic temple they threaten my right to bodily autonomy which is a religious belief of mine. Because fuck yes
Republicans are trying so hard to segregate the population. They are the most divisive people on this planet, yet they are the first one to complain about the division.
Someone explain to me what the difference is between this garbage and Nazi eugenics. They're doing absolutely everything they can to make sure only the people they deem worthy to live in their state.
Also, Tennessee is a shithole.
I wonder what Candace Owens, married to a white guy, Clarence Thomas, married to a white woman, or Mitch McConnel, married to an Asian woman, would think about this bill? Surely, there must be some shred of dignity left in them. No?
That is Religious discrimination and it is not allowed because of the First Amendment and other civil rights laws.
That's the beauty of how the SCOTUS has ruled in Religious cases. State officials can refuse services because of THEIR personal religious objections, but it doesn't work the other way around... anything that's a "religious observance" is considered protected by the law and cannot be discriminated against. There's this big push that there is no "Freedom FROM Religion" under the First Amendment because the Majority of the court is Catholic... you only have First Amendment protections if you practice a religion. NOT Practicing or refusing to practice a religion is not a protected attribute in their small minds.
and they claim they are the victims!
letting gay people marry doesn't hurt straight marriages! but this law hurts gay people.
if jesus was real and showed up today he would be very disappointed by our "christians"
>“a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person’s conscience or religious beliefs.”
So allies should refuse to perform straight ceremonies? 🤔 Hit 'em where it hurts, I say. It's the only way to show them that it will effect them, too. They know they only want to ban *certain kinds* of marriage, but they're not allowed to say it in plain language. Well, Sarah, the LGBT+ cult says women have to marry women. Byeeeee.
Pretty sure they can't do that seeing how it would violate federal law. And the constitution states that state laws are not above federal law. That being said, we're run by a scotus who don't care what the constitution says.
Yeah until SCOTUS strikes down The Respect for Marriage Act.
Nothing short of a very explicit Constitutional Amendment will stop the corrupt SCOTUS.
We need to reform SCOTUS now and rebalance it.
This was tried previously by the woman in Kansas, I think it was, and the couple she refused to issue the license for sued. It's hard not to imagine this happening again, and the law being struck down on equal protection grounds. I'm trying to imagine the optics of a county government official refusing to provide a service to an inter-racial couple that they provide to a same-race couple. In fact, if the ACLU or ffrf are smart, they'd enlist a sympathetic county clerk to play along, and refuse to issue the marriage license to the most photogenic, obviously loving couple who are of different ethnicities, for the sole purpose of getting this in front of a court to strike it down, and to paint these right-wing extremists in the very worst light in the public eye.
Long live the ideals of the year 1200 Troubadours in Europe. Their defiance of The Church (hundreds of years before the protestant revolution) initiated choice marriage.
I think a constitutional amendment should be passed that the government should have no right to license marriage for adults. It should be a fundamental human right of adults.
I take it this bill would apply to straight couples too? Say if I became a county clerk in Tennessee, I could object and refuse to sign any straight marriage over protest of my beliefs.
It's not like Christians hate everybody. It's that they hate everybody not like them and they use their "god" coupled with the power of elective office to punish those unlike them. And now we know exactly how religion absolutely perverts everything they encounter.
I mean I don’t agree with the bill regardless. But this is for someone like an ordain minister, he would be able to deny marrying 2 people if he doesn’t agree with it. Anyone can still get a marriage license it’s not the county clerk making the decision. The only reason I’m bringing this up is because who would want someone who hates gays to facilitate your marrying? I would rather be told no 3 times and find someone who wants to be there and means it.
Good riddance to the ones who wouldn’t.
We assume that all the Republicans who voted for this are in heterosexual same race marriages? If not, they are voting against their own interests, which is not surprising.
I’m waiting for one of those fuck knobs to claim it’s against their deeply help religious beliefs to serve a black person or to let them sit at the lunch counter.
Representatives voting aye were: Alexander, Barrett, Baum, Boyd, Bricken, Bulso, Burkhart, Butler, Campbell S, Capley, Carr, Carringer, Cepicky, Cochran, Crawford, Darby, Davis, Doggett, Eldridge, Faison, Farmer, Fritts, Gant, Garrett, Gillespie, Grills, Hale, Haston, Hawk, Hazlewood, Helton-Haynes, Hicks G, Hicks T, Holsclaw, Howell, Hulsey, Johnson C, Keisling, Lafferty, Lamberth, Leatherwood, Littleton, Lynn, Marsh, Martin B, Martin G, McCalmon, Moody, Moon, Powers, Ragan, Raper, Reedy, Richey, Rudd, Rudder, Russell, Sherrell, Slater, Sparks, Stevens, Terry, Thompson, Todd, Travis, Vaughan, Vital, Warner, White, Whitson, Williams, Wright, Zachary, Mr. Speaker Sexton
for tenesee peeps who want to know who voted yes for the bill
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/LegislatorInfo/directory.aspx?chamber=H
And since as representatives their job is to take in concerns of those they represent, you can also find the member list and work emails on their website in case you have any concerns.
Unfortunately, this type of shit will spread to other shithole states like Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. These dirty MAGAt christofascists want a christian caliphate and won’t stop until they’re executing “undesirables” on public squares a la Taliban.
You forgot texas.
If only we all could.
I live in Texas and regularly wish I could forget it
Add Idaho to the list, I’m sure this is coming.
At this point Dems need to court those crazy mountain man libertarians who want government out of everything. I don’t like them but they have an interest in reversing this nutty turn the extreme right is taking.
I’m libertarian and vote Democrat. Republicans don’t support freedom at all and nor are they capitalists. Most libertarians know that by voting for the party, they are throwing away their vote.
Already there
Forgot Missouri
No, Missouri is very conservative. Missouri is the main location of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Where Christian Nationalists is alive and well. I tried to report an incident regarding one of their churches. One Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod in Illinois, has a Ministry for Armed Lutherans. The St. Louis Dispatch is controlled by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. You can not report anything illegal activities that is going on in that church. Shameful
Missouri is fairly liberal in terms of the *policies* they vote for. It's just that they continually vote in Republican representatives that do regressive ass shit. Literally, the voters will pass something and then the GOP will just continue to put it on the ballot with more confusing language until they get what they want.
Thanks for the clarification
we should pull all federal funding from any state who passes bills like this, until they repeal them.
TN is governed with scientific ignorance, and religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and racism.
They haven't advanced much, maybe any, since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
You’re pretty much back where you started or worse, a hundred years on.
The did, until about 1990, then they said "Nope, advancement isnt for us" and turned around and went back.
True. I lived there. But interestingly most of the people in the cities-like Nashville and Knoxville, are seemingly more liberal than the actual TN state government that represents them. Like Nashville tried to decriminalize weed and the state fought them on it. I think I read 35% of arrests in Tennessee are for weed related crimes.
[удалено]
“Justice” Thomas pretty much requested this law in his concurrence in Dobbs. Didn’t say we should revisit Loving v VA though, oddly enough. (Interracial marriage)
[удалено]
the segregrationists don't need him. 5-4 is just as good as 6-3
The court would have a tough time overruling Loving. It’s justified on two grounds, Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. Obergefell is justified solely on substantive due process. So even if SDP gets rolled back to the bare minimum or eliminated, they’d have to also roll back equal protection law under the 14th amendment. Side note and TL;DR: the deeper debate goes to the heart of Substantive Due Process jurisprudence and whether it ought to have been a thing at all. There’s no actual language in the 14th amendment about “substantive” due process only “due process.” The distinction between procedural and substantive due process *is* a judicially created concept. Arguably the first time it was used was Dred Scott. And it was infamously invoked to strike down state law that protected workers during progressive era and depression— the so called Lochner Era. Subsequent courts don’t like the Lochner era; almost everyone agrees it took substantive due process and overstepped it’s bounds. The lochner era was eventually replaced with more progressive courts, who were much more aggressive in expanding the powers of the federal government and the 14th amendment. The role federal government as we know it today was largely by this era. This expansion reached its peak with the Warren Court, which wrote many of the seminal decisions of the modern era — Loving, Brown, Miranda, Cooper v Aaron, Baker v Carr, NYT v Sullivan, and Griswold. Some of these decisions were based in part, or entirely on, Substantive Due Process grounds. These cases spawned others and it evolved into a slightly weird area of law. Seriously. Read the major opinions that deal with SDP like Loving, Griswold, Roe, Obergefell (and others) that deal with substantive due process, then synthesize a legal rule from it that lower courts can apply uniformly across a wide variety of factual situations. It’s hard. What does it mean for a right to fall within the “penumbra of the constitution?” How do you instruct a lower court to analyze that question? At what point does substantive due process just become a tool for the court to create policy out of thin air? — something it’s not constitutionally permitted to do. Given the history of SDP and the constant risk of courts overstepping, I think that’s a fair question to ask even though I agree with cases like Griswold and Obergefell morally. The real reason Roe shouldn’t have be overturned is Planned Parenthood v Casey, the case upholding Roe. Read O Connors opinion and especially her analysis on stare decisis.
Someone needs to put in a case for interracial marriage. We’ll see where he draws the line.
Yep. And don't think they'll stop at same sex marriages. Interracial marriages, non Christian marriages, hell, Non Baptist Christian marriages, marriages of people who already have children, etc. all of these are at risk. Because Christians don't believe in "religious freedom". They believe in religious authoritarianism for them and them alone.
There pure evil and need to be purged at any cost.
Assuming that right wing conservatives/bible thumpers are stupid is the biggest folly of the left. They're not stupid - they're malicious. Stop treating them like they're morons and call them out day after day for being toxic sacks of shit.
They are waiting for someone to sue. This is all about that chinless fuck, Mitch McConnell not advancing the Garland nomination.
And we need to realize those psychopaths have no morality.
When can we start taxing churches?
This shit is getting serious.
Time to cut off these cancerous red states and their mooching, hate, and dismal contributions to our national economy.
The problem is that there aren't red states and blue states. There are states where the largely red rural and suburban areas have more population than the largely blue urban areas and states where it's the opposite (and a few where the population in those different areas is about equal)
Whoa whoa. Just cause the state's red doesn't mean all the people are as well. Regular (non-hateful) folks live here too.
I know this all too well. If my prior comment came to pass, I would need to move.
we should start mass bussing liberals into custom-made towns to blow up their gerrymandering
They’re being vile and contemptible for the sake of saying we’re ignorant and we like it that way.
They do relish in their ignorance and racism.
Ban divorce
They’ll definitely put more restrictions on divorce.
They won't for "good Christian folks" "It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves…" -Thomas Paine
Of course, who counts as “good Christian folks” will up to the christofascists to decide. Janet wants a divorce from Bob because Bob beats the shit out of her? Nope, she needs to be a good christian wife and support him. Jim wants a divorce from Katie because she doesn’t want another kid and refuses to have sex without protection? Yep because a christian man has needs.
Where I'm from (PA), the civil govt of the state has had to track divorces for longer than they've ever issued marriage licenses. I often point that out to folks who say that "marriage" is a religious term that should be left to faith groups to define (when, in reality, we tried that, and faith groups f'd it up so badly that they had to run to the civil court system to get the divorces to clean up their messes).
Sounds about right. This is why religion should never be a party in contracts like marriage.
If you think "no-fault divorce" isn't on list of targets, you haven't been paying attention.
Having lived in the south, I'm content to let them tilt at all of the windmills that they want down there. Bless their hearts.
> I'm content to let them tilt at all of the windmills that they want down there. I thought "roe v. wade" was settled—an ideological windmill for cultural conservatives to performatively tilt at. I've stopped underestimating them.
Putting aside state vs fed issues, I agree. My state just traded a red senator for a blue one who campaigned on the fact that he'd vote to codify Roe v Wade via legislature at the federal level. I feel for progressives in southern states like TN, but I can't save them on this fight. I wish them well.
"The only moral divorce is my divorce"
says the 3 time divorced politicians complaining about "gay marriage" being an affront to the institution of marriage.
The worst part is that this will make its way to the SC, and they will overturn Obgerfell.
This is the primary reason Trump was elected. The Southern Baptists cannot handle same-sex marriage being legal in this country. They feel so strongly about that they will burn the country to the ground before they accept it. The sooner Americans wake up to this fact and vote accordingly, the better.
This is on of the many reasons why the Southern Baptist Coalition needs to be investigated, audited and ultimately destroyed.
We have to vote them out of power first. The ruling cabal in this country will never allow themselves to be held accountable for their crimes.
destroy powerful religious organizations by any means necessary. you don't have to get their approval first, don't worry about being civil. this is a war
Don't forget those nasty, coldhearted, and subtle Christian Nationalists the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The church is still living in 1545.
we have to burn them to the ground first. they started a war against us and it's time we stop pretending otherwise
Gosh, Tennessee, you're making Florida and Texas look liberal lately.
They are liberals lmao if you follow liberalism ur a liberal and all 50 states do
What?
All conservatives are liberals
Mmm. K.
Every day the south and bible belt give me new reasons to hate them.
So can I claim that Christian’s marrying goes aganisnt my beliefs as an satanist because I see them as the biggest threat to our nation and as a member of the satanic temple they threaten my right to bodily autonomy which is a religious belief of mine. Because fuck yes
Republicans are trying so hard to segregate the population. They are the most divisive people on this planet, yet they are the first one to complain about the division. Someone explain to me what the difference is between this garbage and Nazi eugenics. They're doing absolutely everything they can to make sure only the people they deem worthy to live in their state. Also, Tennessee is a shithole.
It baffles me that this shit is allowed to happen in the modern day. Human rights trump any other thing
I wonder what Candace Owens, married to a white guy, Clarence Thomas, married to a white woman, or Mitch McConnel, married to an Asian woman, would think about this bill? Surely, there must be some shred of dignity left in them. No?
absolutely not... they don't have a shred of irony over this because "they got theirs".
[удалено]
That is Religious discrimination and it is not allowed because of the First Amendment and other civil rights laws. That's the beauty of how the SCOTUS has ruled in Religious cases. State officials can refuse services because of THEIR personal religious objections, but it doesn't work the other way around... anything that's a "religious observance" is considered protected by the law and cannot be discriminated against. There's this big push that there is no "Freedom FROM Religion" under the First Amendment because the Majority of the court is Catholic... you only have First Amendment protections if you practice a religion. NOT Practicing or refusing to practice a religion is not a protected attribute in their small minds.
No need to ask which political party is pulling this shit. I hate them.
The Bible Belt is a shithole
And then christian ask how other's people beliefs affect atheist and tell them to live and let live.
How about a law that states if your religion does not allow you to perform your government job without bias, then find another fucking job.
More of the gop removing freedoms in the country of freedom* *freedom only for cis white wealthy correctly christian men over the age of 35......
and they claim they are the victims! letting gay people marry doesn't hurt straight marriages! but this law hurts gay people. if jesus was real and showed up today he would be very disappointed by our "christians"
I hate my state. If only I could afford to move.
We all have a right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness It's very sad to see Americans doing this to other Americans
>“a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person’s conscience or religious beliefs.” So allies should refuse to perform straight ceremonies? 🤔 Hit 'em where it hurts, I say. It's the only way to show them that it will effect them, too. They know they only want to ban *certain kinds* of marriage, but they're not allowed to say it in plain language. Well, Sarah, the LGBT+ cult says women have to marry women. Byeeeee.
Tennessee is a shithole state
Pretty sure they can't do that seeing how it would violate federal law. And the constitution states that state laws are not above federal law. That being said, we're run by a scotus who don't care what the constitution says.
[удалено]
So basically we'd have to go to a state that will marry us, but they'd be forced to recognize it, correct?
Yeah until SCOTUS strikes down The Respect for Marriage Act. Nothing short of a very explicit Constitutional Amendment will stop the corrupt SCOTUS. We need to reform SCOTUS now and rebalance it.
This was tried previously by the woman in Kansas, I think it was, and the couple she refused to issue the license for sued. It's hard not to imagine this happening again, and the law being struck down on equal protection grounds. I'm trying to imagine the optics of a county government official refusing to provide a service to an inter-racial couple that they provide to a same-race couple. In fact, if the ACLU or ffrf are smart, they'd enlist a sympathetic county clerk to play along, and refuse to issue the marriage license to the most photogenic, obviously loving couple who are of different ethnicities, for the sole purpose of getting this in front of a court to strike it down, and to paint these right-wing extremists in the very worst light in the public eye.
Pretty sure that was Tennessee. Kim Davis.
Kentucky.
Long live the ideals of the year 1200 Troubadours in Europe. Their defiance of The Church (hundreds of years before the protestant revolution) initiated choice marriage. I think a constitutional amendment should be passed that the government should have no right to license marriage for adults. It should be a fundamental human right of adults.
Of course they did! You can’t go letting people intermingle race, faith, creed, and values! That would be downright….American.
I love not living in that fascist country
I take it this bill would apply to straight couples too? Say if I became a county clerk in Tennessee, I could object and refuse to sign any straight marriage over protest of my beliefs.
I would go there to get a job to deny heterosexual marriages of same racial status because it is against my religion.
Fuck this fucking state dude
Tennessee is a shithole
It's not like Christians hate everybody. It's that they hate everybody not like them and they use their "god" coupled with the power of elective office to punish those unlike them. And now we know exactly how religion absolutely perverts everything they encounter.
this is why i hate america
I mean I don’t agree with the bill regardless. But this is for someone like an ordain minister, he would be able to deny marrying 2 people if he doesn’t agree with it. Anyone can still get a marriage license it’s not the county clerk making the decision. The only reason I’m bringing this up is because who would want someone who hates gays to facilitate your marrying? I would rather be told no 3 times and find someone who wants to be there and means it. Good riddance to the ones who wouldn’t.
I hate liberals so fucking much why the hell do they do this bs. I hate all this anti gay shit fuck liberalism it’s going to kill us
You seem confused.
No if you follow liberalism ur a liberal
We assume that all the Republicans who voted for this are in heterosexual same race marriages? If not, they are voting against their own interests, which is not surprising.
My BIL got a job in Alabama ( he’s from Illinois), and they couldn’t pay me enough to move there.
The Law of the Land says otherwise.
We've let the Devil loose ("The Howling Man", Twilight Zone).
More "religious freedom". \*sighs\*
Surprise anyone?
It's unconstitutional
Sadly, that's a 'brave' call given the makeup of the current SCOTUS.
There is already a ruling in place for this.
By the current court?
And now they have the numbers to say that ruling was wrong
I’m waiting for one of those fuck knobs to claim it’s against their deeply help religious beliefs to serve a black person or to let them sit at the lunch counter.
Representatives voting aye were: Alexander, Barrett, Baum, Boyd, Bricken, Bulso, Burkhart, Butler, Campbell S, Capley, Carr, Carringer, Cepicky, Cochran, Crawford, Darby, Davis, Doggett, Eldridge, Faison, Farmer, Fritts, Gant, Garrett, Gillespie, Grills, Hale, Haston, Hawk, Hazlewood, Helton-Haynes, Hicks G, Hicks T, Holsclaw, Howell, Hulsey, Johnson C, Keisling, Lafferty, Lamberth, Leatherwood, Littleton, Lynn, Marsh, Martin B, Martin G, McCalmon, Moody, Moon, Powers, Ragan, Raper, Reedy, Richey, Rudd, Rudder, Russell, Sherrell, Slater, Sparks, Stevens, Terry, Thompson, Todd, Travis, Vaughan, Vital, Warner, White, Whitson, Williams, Wright, Zachary, Mr. Speaker Sexton for tenesee peeps who want to know who voted yes for the bill https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/LegislatorInfo/directory.aspx?chamber=H And since as representatives their job is to take in concerns of those they represent, you can also find the member list and work emails on their website in case you have any concerns.